What do mean by symbolically expressed could you define that term. The earth orbits the sun that is a fact .Why can I not point to a person and say that. on reflection however it seems to me that you are genuinely that uncertain about how to distinguish fact from fiction and believe that a factual statement has to be accompanied by a metaphor of some kind.I fear that your chances of succeding in a debate against a doctor would be minimal.
I replied:
Esther12 said:
Right: The Earth orbits the Sun is a fact. But if you just pointed at the sun, this would not be a fact. 1 + 1 = 2 is a fact, but if you just moved money around in front of someone to illustrate this, I dont think that could be described as a fact.
Ive not really thought much about this, but I think the term fact only applies to claims about reality, rather than simple presentations of reality. You seemed rather dismissive of people using words rather than facts but I think words are often used to express facts, and that the word fact may actually only apply to expressed claims rather than just evidence.
You replied:
Gerwyn said:
you mean that moving money around cant be described as a fact
[And]
you do seem to have trouble understanding the word fact dont you.words may or not be used to express facts. Facts and claims are different entities.are facts not evidence in your lexigon?
I replied:
Esther12 said:
As I tried to make clear, Im not sure about this. But I think that if someone was to gather a crowd of people together and say This is a fact: and then spend a few minutes shifting money about, a lot of the crowd would think he was nuts. If someone then said Hes moving money around, that would be a fact.
Regardless, the point I was trying to make is that there is nothing wrong with being convinced about something just because of words words are very useful way of communicating information and facts, indeed, I think that facts might require some such form of communication in order to be considered facts.
[And]
I was talking about something different. I dont think that facts and evidence are synonyms, although I think that facts can be used as evidence. This is all getting a bit linguistic and off topic though.
Were now up to you current post:
again that is not what you originally said.you do seem to have difficulty with clarity and fact
As you can now see, Ive been consistent through out this discussion. Id be interested to see exactly where you misunderstood me.
dont think that you are in any position to comment on the percieved garbled use of language by another judging by the rambling nature of your own posts(as i percieve things of course)
I have no choice: if youre going to complain about me twisting your words Ive got to be able to point out that your words were twisted long before I got to them.
perhaps you could clarify and define your terms here
This discussion began with post 151, where you wrote: The problem is that you dont speak for the facts
Its a complaint that doesnt really make sense, but I didnt want to quibble over your use of language, so originally just tried to muddle through, presuming you thought that there was some conflict between my post and the facts and asking which facts I had contradicted. That led no-where. Ive since been trying to explain why my not speaking for the facts is not a problem, as no-one does. We can make claims about and of facts, providing supporting evidence or criticising the evidence of others, but we cannot speak for the facts. If you do not mean that my claims are contradicted by the evidence, I do not know what your original complaint is of: You think Im wrong but do not want to bother identifying precisely where? You want me to present some evidence in support of my claims? If so, youve never pointed out which ones need further support.
you were answering the post when i said you dont use any facts .You chose not to reply to that I dont think you were being silly merely disingenuous.perhaps if you used words and not post numbers you would not be quite so confused in these matters
In post 162, I did reply to your comment about no facts. (You'd said 'The problem is that you dont speak for the facts' - I assumed this meant you thought I'd made some factual error. You actually meant that I am not acting as spokesperson for some entity known as 'the facts'?) Of course, I did not then proceed to provide a list of copy and pasted facts, because you gave no indication as to what claims you wanted supporting evidence for, or thought were inaccurate. If you want a more specific reply, you should ask a specific question. Just baldly asserting that my posts contain no facts is a rather empty gesture.
Lets trace this one back again:
It started with my reply to someone else:
Esther12 said:
3 I do speak for myself, and will continue to do so, even if it doesn't fit in with what others would like to hear.
You then presented the now infamous phrase:
Gerwyn said:
The problem is that you dont speak for the facts
I assumed this meant that you thought you had found some contradiction between the known facts and my posts what could it be maybe I had made some mistake and was about to learn something new and interesting?
Esther12 said:
3) What facts have I contradicted?
Sadly, a disappointing answer that would not lead to any further useful discussion:
Gerwyn said:
you have not contradicted any facts because you have not used any
Given the tone of your own responses I decided to have some fun, taking your initial comment literally, and asking what it could mean:
Esther12 said:
3) You'd said 'The problem is that you dont speak for the facts' - I assumed this meant you thought I'd made some factual error. You actually meant that I am not acting as spokesperson for some entity known as 'the facts'?
This post seems slightly confused to me:
Gerwyn said:
I,m sorry that you view facts as a kind of entity.peoples who's arguments are based soley on the misuse of words do find facts to be a spectre or their nemesis. I actually said that you dont use any facts.If you can misinterpret that you would have little chance in a debate against someone who deliberately used words with a specifc definition hidden as plain english.perhaps you dont actually believe that there are such things as facts.I think that this might be the case as you tend to assume your interpretations are evidence enough. It seems to me therefore that you would not have any basis for deciding on whether an argument was a ggo one or not.
I thought your complaint that I actually said that you dont use any facts referred to me having quoted you as saying The problem is that you dont speak for the facts if this is not the case, can you please point out what it did refer to? This seems to be the crux of the current dispute.
Esther12 said:
Youre complaining about the fact I claimed you said The problem is that you dont speak for the facts. Maybe you should have checked on this before writing a post attacking me for so stupidly misunderstanding you. (check post 151).
Here you seem to think I said that I had stupidly misrepresented your post. I have not found what would make you think that, and would appreciate it if you could provide the quote which did so.
The post you quoted was clearly a question about what it was you thought your sentence was saying one to which youve still not replied.
Gerwyn said:
No this your comment that I am referring to:
You'd said 'The problem is that you dont speak for the facts' - I assumed this meant you thought I'd made some factual error. You actually meant that I am not acting as spokesperson for some entity known as 'the facts'?
you mentioned that you had stupidly misrepresented my post not me.
Here I point out where your false accusation of misquoting occurred:
Esther12 said:
If you look at point number three of post #166 you can see youre complaint that I misquoted you: I actually said that you dont use any facts. If you can misinterpret that you would have little chance in a debate against someone who deliberately used words with a specifc definition hidden as plain english. You can see that I quoted you correctly with The problem is that you dont speak for the facts if you go to post #155.
The whole thing makes you look a little silly Im afraid.
And now were back to the present.
That of course was not the point you actually tried to make
Would you be able to provide the quote which has led you to believe I was trying to make another?
no what you did once again was change my words to suit yourself and posted support for your misrepresentation of what i said. Again If you referred to your words rather than post numbers that would probably be clearer to you
Check the post its got a direct quotation from you right after my introduction. I did not edit it.
cont...